Are cuts in Britain's armed forces threatening military operations?

The Commons defence committee says so in an unusually thorough report published on Wednesday. Despite ministerial denials, the armed forces cannot go on doing what the government is asking them to do now, and wants them to do in the future, without an increase in their budget. Afghanistan, costing more than £18bn so far, and Libya, more than £260m, is being paid for out of the Treasury's reserve. However, the RAF's bombing of Libya cannot go on for much longer since pilots are running out of targets, and British troops are ending their combat role in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The defence committee says in a significant passage: "We dispute the prime minister's assertion that the UK has a full spectrum defence capability." The heads of the navy, army and air force, agree with the committee.

British forces will not be able to carry out the kind of operations it has in the past, and ministers may want them to in the future, not least because of the scrapping of existing aircraft carriers – the UK will not have one equipped with planes for a decade – and of Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft.

Is it solely a matter of resources?

No. Last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR) amounted to Treasury-driven salami slices – that is to say, despite ministerial denials, resources dictated what military kit and how many sailors, soldiers and air force personnel should be cut. What the review did not do was consider what kind of future military operations Britain was likely to get involved in, and what it should get involved in. For example, will the British army, ever again, be engaged in the kind of counter-insurgency operation it has been in Afghanistan? It is very unlikely. Humanitarian missions, special forces operations, perhaps, but no more larger scale ones. The army is facing an existential crisis.

Will defence cuts threaten Britain's role in the world?

Though the government denies it, the Commons defence committee says they will. It states: "The government appears to believe that the UK can maintain its influence while reducing spending, not just in the area of defence but also at the Foreign Office. We do not agree." The question is how Britain's influence relies on military prowess. Less and less so, it could be argued. "Soft power", including foreign aid (the government is increasing the British aid budget by well over a third, and a robust economy and trading position will become more and more important. The defence committee called for "a realistic understanding of the world and the UK's role and status in it". A debate about that is badly needed. That should determine the defence budget, and the size of the armed forces.